ReviewJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Proximal contact tightness of direct Class II composite resin restorations with various matrix systems: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of proximal contact tightness and associated factors in posterior resin composite restorations: a cross-sectional study in Nairobi, Kenya.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Retention Rates of Composite Resin Pit and Fissure Sealants Placed on Permanent Molars Treated with Air Abrasion and Acid Etching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Review
- Effects of two sectional matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and mesiodistal dimension in class II composite restorations: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of matrix system on the quality of proximal contact in posterior bulk-fill resin composite restorations- an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- The Evaluation of Restored Proximal Contact Areas with Four Direct Adherent Biomaterials: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Comparison of proximal contact and contours of class II restoration in premolars and molars restored with three different matrix systems using FDI criteria: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Treatment outcome of coronal pulpotomy and indirect pulp capping in mature permanent molars with symptoms of moderate pulpitis: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Comparison of proximal contact tightness and contour of bioclear biofit HD versus Composi-tight 3DXR matrix systems in Class-II composite restoration: A randomized clinical study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Restoring an ideal proximal contact in direct Class II composite resin restorations is challenging due to polymerization shrinkage, absence of condensability of composite materials, thickness of matrix bands, and the use of various separation techniques, retainers, and bands. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the proximal contact tightness that is achieved by various matrix systems used to restore a direct Class II cavity with composite resin restoration. Methods: A systematic review was carried out according to the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines. The online search for the articles was done in electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The articles comparing different matrix systems for restoration were selected. Out of 146 articles, a total of 6 articles met the selection criteria and were included. The QUIN risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was used for assessing the study quality. The data extracted from full text articles selected for inclusion, using a standardized software (Office Excel 2013 Software, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). Results and Conclusion: Combination of sectional matrices and separation rings resulted in tighter proximal contact compared to other matrix systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.